| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/25/2007 11:24:14 PM · #401 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... something that's subjective and a point of interpretation. |
Hmmm...that sounds like something to garner statistical feedback from. He-he. I hear the wheel coming back around. Yep, full circle. :) |
you mean this thing--->[thumb]591804[/thumb] |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 11:26:28 PM · #402 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... something that's subjective and a point of interpretation. |
Hmmm...that sounds like something to garner statistical feedback from. He-he. I hear the wheel coming back around. Yep, full circle. :) |
One thing that I have noticed in the past few weeks (I hope this doesn't cancel my whole argument out) is that there have not only been some ribbon winners that have gotten no votes below a 4 or 5, but that the voters notice and put a statement to that fact in their post-challenge comments.
That may very well be because the entrant REALLY met the challenge!
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 11:28:54 PM · #403 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... something that's subjective and a point of interpretation. |
Hmmm...that sounds like something to garner statistical feedback from. He-he. I hear the wheel coming back around. Yep, full circle. :) |
One thing that I have noticed in the past few weeks (I hope this doesn't cancel my whole argument out) is that there have not only been some ribbon winners that have gotten no votes below a 4 or 5, but that the voters notice and put a statement to that fact in their post-challenge comments.
That may very well be because the entrant REALLY met the challenge! |
OR, the image submitted managed not to offend any of the various voting groups.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 11:30:02 PM · #404 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... something that's subjective and a point of interpretation. |
Hmmm...that sounds like something to garner statistical feedback from. He-he. I hear the wheel coming back around. Yep, full circle. :) |
One thing that I have noticed in the past few weeks (I hope this doesn't cancel my whole argument out) is that there have not only been some ribbon winners that have gotten no votes below a 4 or 5, but that the voters notice and put a statement to that fact in their post-challenge comments.
That may very well be because the entrant REALLY met the challenge! |
Okay! I give up!
I'm going to bed!
Have a good night folks.
OR, the image submitted managed not to offend any of the various voting groups.
Ray |
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 12:04:54 AM · #405 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
It is not reduntant because at least one person (ME) finds it useful.
And it is not meaningless, because at least one person (ME) find it meaningful ...
If there is some mechanism to do something it does not means that other mechanism should not be implemented or considered. |
ME, ME, ME ... yes, that's part of what's bugging me.
Recoding the voting page, the profile page, possibly creating more statistical calculations which are likely to be ignored is a lot of work to go through just so that YOU don't have to hear someone's disagreement when YOU say someone's photo doesn't meet YOUR interpretation of the challenge.
We have two perfectly adequate mechanisms for expressing your evaluation of a photo -- a vote and a comment. Just type DNMC in the comment box if it seems appropriate. Then if someone violates the site TOS in their response, by all means "tattle" on them. If it doesn't violate the TOS, they why should YOU get to express your opinion but the photographer doesn't get to respond?
We have a tradition in the US that the accused gets to confront their accuser in open court. To have a checkbox where YOU can diss someone's photo without the photographer getting to respond, or even know who's making the criticism, strikes me as useful only for the box-checker -- who gets to "diss-and-run" -- and it is going to be ultimately useless and frustrating for the photographer. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 12:09:36 AM · #406 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
One of the things that IMO will appeal to the voters as a whole is the ease and simplicity of the checkbox if they choose to use it so that it may very well get used as a part of the three second viewing. |
Exactly the problem -- why should we encourage quicker viewing and an easy check-off box for people to avoid having to think about an image? |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 12:10:42 AM · #407 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... I have yet to really hear any good reasons as to why it wouldn't work ...
I say put up or shut up. ... |
The reasons HAVE been posted, but you missed them (or fail to see clearly) - some of which have been posted twice as a repeat. |
Those posts ...
(x) DNMC |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 12:19:44 AM · #408 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by zxaar:
It is not reduntant because at least one person (ME) finds it useful.
And it is not meaningless, because at least one person (ME) find it meaningful ...
If there is some mechanism to do something it does not means that other mechanism should not be implemented or considered. |
ME, ME, ME ... yes, that's part of what's bugging me.
|
If it (ME) is bugging someone I simply do not care.
My response was to an absolute statement saying that it is useless and reduntant. Usefulness and redundecy could be relative terms. And I disagree (so do many others) with such absolute statements that include everyone. Read the whole thing again.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
We have two perfectly adequate mechanisms for expressing your evaluation of a photo -- a vote and a comment. |
This arguement does not hold, simply because what we are asking is additional feature that could be switched off for the people who do not like it. One is not forced to participate in it.
Now as members we are entitled to request for features which we think could be useful for us. (and others are not bothered by it by switching this thing off).
Why if you are satisfied with current situation everyone has to be satisfied with it?
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 12:22:55 AM · #409 |
| A lot of people do not like bugs, flowers, eggs, red, or waht ever should they each get a button? |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 12:23:27 AM · #410 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I have yet to really hear any good reasons as to why it wouldn't work as a reference tool and as a way to gather info. |
Kinda like that other data-gathering reference tool, the "This comment was helpful" checkbox? ;-) |
You do know some people actually use that checkbox for what it was designed for right? Again, nobody is offering a solution to cure cancer witht his idea, however it seems that's required to get those who opposed it to even give it a chance. Like with everything else people will be free to take part in using the checkbox or not just like the comment checkbox that you mock.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 12:23:58 AM · #411 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
One of the things that IMO will appeal to the voters as a whole is the ease and simplicity of the checkbox if they choose to use it so that it may very well get used as a part of the three second viewing. |
Exactly the problem -- why should we encourage quicker viewing and an easy check-off box for people to avoid having to think about an image? |
What does quicker viewing have to do with anything? According to you the voter is always right in how they vote, and any attempt to interpret it otherwise is ignorance. Surely they aren't more right if they view an image for 10 seconds or 10 minutes. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 12:26:25 AM · #412 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Surely they aren't more right if they view an image for 10 seconds or 10 minutes. |
They are more likely to give a more thoughtful response. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 12:38:03 AM · #413 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Surely they aren't more right if they view an image for 10 seconds or 10 minutes. |
They are more likely to give a more thoughtful response. |
Do you really think adding a checkbox is going to encourage people to vote faster??? You know what actually does? That firefox plugin that is link to on this site which allows for quicker votes to be made. I guess I missed the thread blasting how that tool brought down Rome.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 12:40:32 AM · #414 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Surely they aren't more right if they view an image for 10 seconds or 10 minutes. |
They are more likely to give a more thoughtful response. |
Do you really think adding a checkbox is going to encourage people to vote faster??? You know what actually does? That firefox plugin that is link to on this site which allows for quicker votes to be made. I guess I missed the thread blasting how that tool brought down Rome. |
lmfao |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 01:12:57 AM · #415 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
We have a tradition in the US that the accused gets to confront their accuser in open court. To have a checkbox where YOU can diss someone's photo without the photographer getting to respond, or even know who's making the criticism, strikes me as useful only for the box-checker -- who gets to "diss-and-run" -- and it is going to be ultimately useless and frustrating for the photographer. |
Come on General, this is ridiculous. By that standard, the entire voting system is un-American. Are you in favor of removing anonymity from the voting process?
R.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 01:46:59 AM · #416 |
A "secret ballot" is not the same as facing a specific accusation without the ability to respond.
BTW: If recipients can "turn off" viewing the tally of DNMC checkboxes, what good will it do? And if we can't tell who checked-off the box, how can we judge whether to give weight to the evaluation or chalk it up to ignorance, idiocy, maliciousness or carelessness?
I [b]still[b/] fail to see why typing DNMC in the comment box won't do the same thing. Put a bag on if you don't want to get a PM during the challenge.
(If it's not obvious, I'm not in a very good mood tonight.)
And again, coding-wise, it's not a matter of "just add a checkbox" ... |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 03:31:12 AM · #417 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And again, coding-wise, it's not a matter of "just add a checkbox" ... |
Now you have said something that I was waiting this whole thread. If someone says that since it is difficult to implement this feature could not be provided make perfect sense. But if someone says that since I feel this feature is useless or meaningless, it shall not be provided to others, does not make much logic. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 07:13:08 AM · #418 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
One of the things that IMO will appeal to the voters as a whole is the ease and simplicity of the checkbox if they choose to use it so that it may very well get used as a part of the three second viewing. |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Exactly the problem -- why should we encourage quicker viewing and an easy check-off box for people to avoid having to think about an image? |
Problem????
No, you're taking it out of context......what I mean is that it'll *possibly* slow someone down a little more and *possibly* garner some further input that *may* be found useful to *some* people.
That'd be the exact opposite of what you say I mean.
I never said, or inferred, that I was encouraging quicker viewing, and I think that is fairly obvious to most here that have been trying to discuss this reasonably, that I'm not interested in having people blast throuigh more quickly.
And at *NO* point did I, or would I, encourage anyone *NOT* to stop and think about an image.
Most of the time, when I have a job for instance, I don't have the luxury of taking the time I want to comment and review images in a manner that I would consider proper.
So I do the best I can.
This checkbox for me, would be a way to add a little extra input without taking much longer. And I would intend that to be an extra index as to my views, i.e, the score and a yes/no checkbox which means that I've rated both the picture *and* its merits of meeting the challenge. Does that sound like I mean to encourage quicker viewing? It's *NOT* meant to do so.
I view this as a positive feature. I realize that not everybody will, but that's also why, since it's a subjective view, that I oppose any kind of penalty, no matter if every voter thinks it's a DNMC entry.
By your own standards at SC, DNMC is a non-DQ scenario. That's a good thing.
If you want to choose to constantly view, and discuss this, as a negative issue, that's your choice, but how about not putting words, or projecting attitudes onto other people.
You're entitled to your opinions, as am I, but you cannot use your opinions to state the outcome of this discussion.
And, if as you state, this feature would be a bother to implement, then just come out and say it instead of telling people that they're wrong about their opinion(s).
You at SC have ultimate say over how things are done, and the power to do things your way, I accept that, but please be responsible in how you deal with an issue like this where it starts to seem like a personal vendetta rather than a choice to not provide a feature that there is obviously some interest in seeing.
I won't question you if you decide not to for administrative reasons, or that adding the feature is a nuisance and/or too time-consuming to deal with and adds unnecessary work.....so be it.
But don't sit there and tell me, and others, that it's useless, unnecessary, and won't work.
That's your opinion, and *only* your opinion, and has *NOT* been proven.
Look, I'll stand up in a heartbeat and state that you at SC do a terrific job, I've been there myself, but please be reasonable, and equitable about how you deal with an issue.
You're certainly permittd to deny any request, this isn't a democracy, but the member body is also entitled to their opinions and to make statements without fear of reprisal.
Good morning, all, I hope that maybe we can wind this down and either try this, or agree to disagree. I pretty much think I've said all I can without dragging my dead horse out.
I do thank all of those that I've had the pleasure of debate with......and I have a newfound respect for some of you I didn't know before this.
Have a great day!
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 08:20:24 AM · #419 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... But don't sit there and tell me, and others, that it's useless, unnecessary, and won't work.
That's your opinion, and *only* your opinion, and has *NOT* been proven. |
And how is it any different when those (the minority BTW) stand up and say the opposite; that this will work. After all, it's not been proven either way.
If anything, the reasons not to implement any addition to the voting page regarding the subject of DNMC have pointed out that it could have a detrimental effect on DPC, and in the end not do anything to alleviate this so-called "problem" of DNMC (smells like the "Troll" word). |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 08:29:51 AM · #420 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
... as members we are entitled to request for features which we think could be useful for us. ... |
I believe the DPC community does a pretty fair job of making suggestions.
Web Site Suggestions (Forum Area)
2,674 Threads
33,711 Posts
Ultimately, it's up to  Langdon to decide which of these thousands of suggestions he will or will not implement. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 08:40:59 AM · #421 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... But don't sit there and tell me, and others, that it's useless, unnecessary, and won't work.
That's your opinion, and *only* your opinion, and has *NOT* been proven. |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
And how is it any different when those (the minority BTW) stand up and say the opposite; that this will work. After all, it's not been proven either way. |
It's not different, and I never said it was; I have stated that IMO the only way to find out would be to try it.
It wasn't until last night, and only in a self-stated fit of pique, that there was even any indication that this would be a bother as far as the work to implement this feature.
I'm not interested in making a bunch of extra work for anyone, so if that's a limiting factor, fine, but that really hadn't been mentioned to date.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
If anything, the reasons not to implement any addition to the voting page regarding the subject of DNMC have pointed out that it could have a detrimental effect on DPC, and in the end not do anything to alleviate this so-called "problem" of DNMC (smells like the "Troll" word). |
See, I don't see it as a problem so much as a less than guided way of garnering info from something that could be turned around.
I don't see DNMC in principle as a problem....some people will not see the tie-in, or others are hoping to fly a shoe-horn or title-driven entry by the voters.....in that case, you could pretty much expect to get checks, but you knew that going in.
Or, as in my case and others, there's genuine interest in whether or not we missed the mark.
Trolls will be trolls, checkbox or not. They will still hammer 1s and 2s on entries that end up in the Top 10.
I don't really see the detriment in this feature on any level, because the same reasoning that is used to dismiss a caustic PM could *much* easier be applied to an anonymous DNMC checkbox without the feeling of the personal attack.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 09:12:18 AM · #422 |
Glad to see glad2beadad picked up so quickly on what would appear to be another user independently coming up with the idea of a DNMC checkbox.
I wonder if the thought has occurred yet that since 9 (better make that 10) are for and 16 are against (or whatever those silly numbers are), that still leaves several tens of thousands of unstated opinions, so really any claims on majority or minority are really rather overstated...
I don't know a whole lot about HTML coding, but I still have a rather difficult time believing that a completely independent radio box would really be all that difficult for a wizard like Langdon to put in. I think I did a little online lesson on Java or HTML or something and the radio box was something like the very first lesson. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 09:19:53 AM · #423 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
I wonder if the thought has occurred yet that since 9 (better make that 10) are for and 16 are against (or whatever those silly numbers are), that still leaves several tens of thousands of unstated opinions, so really any claims on majority or minority are really rather overstated... |
Have you ever considered the very distinct possibility that the vast majority TRULY DON'T CARE... and that we are effectively arguing in a vacuum.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 09:20:16 AM · #424 |
was lesson two the one that teaches you how to put that radio box information into a database, pull that data out, perform calculations on the data, and edit every page of the site to display the result?
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 09:53:52 AM · #425 |
Honestly I think the idea of a DNMC check box is a little silly. I believe all my entries meet the challenge and I like to give everyone else the benefit of the doubt when voting. I've gotten plenty of DNMC comments, are they helpful?...absolutely, they tell me a lot about the person who left that comment.
I understand that it is suggested that the DNMC check be something that can be turned on or off...but why then stop at just a DNMC box? Lets kill several birds with one stone while coding shall we? We could have a "...boring..." box, "I am tired of_____ shots" box, "You should throw away your camera." box, an "unoriginal and formulaic" box, a "I hate naked people" box...the list could go on and on.
I simply don't like the idea of any sort of anonymous check box...not that I'm going to send the commenter a rotten PM or call them out. Again, knowing who leaves such a comment tells me a lot about the person who left it.
And the idea of removing an entry if it gets a certain amount of DNMC votes is absolutely horrific. (Turning on "Tongue planted firmly in cheek" warning...) Of course implementing a feature such as that would surely cut down on the number of entries thus being less taxing on the all knowing DNMC hunters and voting population in general. If we implemented this feature maybe we could code in something the could send out some sort of electric shock to the viewer to keep them awake while voting?(TFPIC warning off.)
I see the challenge themes as an inspiration, a jumping point as do many others...that's the fun of it all. Why do we need more reasons to make this place less fun?
Message edited by author 2007-09-26 09:54:34. |
|
